test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Re: Tier 5 Connie
salynrayder
Member Posts: 139 Arc User
So I was going to jump in my old Constitution and tool around a little bit when the fleet called for ISE participants. Not thinking I joined and didn't realize I was in the Constitution until it was too late. So I was able to complete ISE in the Connie without dying until I got caught up in the explosion of the last Tac Cube. It was a lot of fun which brings me to my question.
No, I don't care if we ever get a T5 Constituion, and I'm not asking for it. My question is why not? You see, I returned to STO AFTER the T5 Connie decision was made. From what I read on the forum, it seems to be that CBS said no T5. I was just wondering what their reason was.
You see, thats it. No one asking for the T5 Connie, just curious as to why there won't be one.
Happy gaming everyone.
No, I don't care if we ever get a T5 Constituion, and I'm not asking for it. My question is why not? You see, I returned to STO AFTER the T5 Connie decision was made. From what I read on the forum, it seems to be that CBS said no T5. I was just wondering what their reason was.
You see, thats it. No one asking for the T5 Connie, just curious as to why there won't be one.
Happy gaming everyone.
Post edited by salynrayder on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Nothing more, nothing less...
To my knowledge, no other explanation exists.
Really? Well, that's a bummer. I was hoping for something that made sense. Oh well, thanks for the reply. Peace.
CBS thinks on a much bigger scale for Trek then STO. STO is a pimple to them. On any given day they have hundreds of Trek licenses to deal with. Sometimes those licenses conflict. The Enterprise is iconic and a huge money maker for CBS. For example, it's the Connie in a twizzler commercials, not the galaxy class; and that twizzler commercial probably paid them more royalties then Cryptic did. How CBS wants to market, and doesn't want to market, that iconic ship is entirely up to them.
But that would require some serious negotiation with both Paramount and CBS. So, would be unlikely to happen anytime soon.
I'm having this tatooed onto my forehead so that people get the message.
It really is that simple, people. Get over it and get on with your lives.
BS! lol Utter utter BS. Your statement is so full of BS, that the global prices of BS plummeted due to the sudden oversupply of BS thanks to you.
Apart from the Licence issues, I am going to assume you don't like JJ-Trek?
hahah! You do realize that JJ Enterprise is in a different universe and you cannot compare it with the Sovereign in her universe:P
My point was that the JJprize is a big ship; as big as the Odyssey or Sovereign. It has plenty of room to fit 25th century technology; assuming that size is the big complaint by many as to why the TOS Connie shouldn't be t5.
However, doesn't every other T5 Connie thread start with "and this is why I believe we need a T5 Connie, now take this to CBS and convince them to give it to us"?
First off, I'd like to know what license conflict? Does the existence of that model site with the subscriptions that has been pushed by Cryptic's dev team (via contest) create a problem with AMT and their "regular" model? Or Micro Machine's "mini" cruisers vs. the minis for SFB / FASA / any other unknown Trek tabletop wargame? Or even minis vs models vs toys? The only time a company winds up with a licensing conflict is if they issue some sort of exclusivity agreement, of which we are not aware of. Obviously, that Twizzler commercial uses the ToS styled Connie, not the JJ-Connie, so if there was an exclusivity window restricting the Connie to JJ's to "prevent confusion with the movie ship", that ship has sailed...
On the issue of a proposed "royalty issue", ie, CBS wants way too much per ship than Cryptic's "regular" price structure would support, one would think that Cryptic would have somehow "let slip" the projected price of the Connie to cover royalties, to see what kind of response it would draw... And even then, given the fact that "creating" a T5 Connie could be nothing more than copy/pasting a ship (say, Galaxy-R), telling it to point at the T1 (or T2) Connie assets instead of the Galaxy assets, then selling at whatever price would need to keep CBS happy, viola...
Therefore, there has to be some other esoteric reason that CBS keeps saying "no", and before we start yet another speculative flame war as to finding a way to "convince" CBS to change their mind, the OP has elected to go straight to find the problem that needs to be solved. Now, I've heard much speculation in the previous threads that CBS has issue with the Connie being portrayed as a cruiser (tank) that can keep up with the Galaxy/Soverign/Oddy that CBS has approved as the replacement flagship of the fleet. Fine. With confirmation of this being the issue, the playerbase can focus on solutions that meet this criteria (and before you ask, yes, I do have one as alluded to in my sig, however, since this is not a "solutions" thread, I'll refrain from spelling it out...)
Still, this thread is an attempt to find the problem first, to know where to aim the solution, instead of arguing the arguments then finding the answer to change CBS's mind...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
You have anything else to add besides this typical fanboy meltdown over anything Abrams Trek related? As it stands now, you are coming across as a twelve year old basement dweller.
No wonder people think Trek fans are like that insane crossing guard with his Uhura blowup doll from "National Lampoon's Senior Trip".
@charliescot25
I have to politely disagree with you. I was never a big fan of the Sovereign design. But I like the sleek updated lines of the updated Constitution. It also looks more like a classic Starfleet design, as opposed to many of the newer designs from The Next Generation film era. And I say this despite being a big fan of the Akira and Norway class starships.
My point about royalties was to get across the idea that while gamers on this forum think STO is a big and important that's not the case to CBS. To CBS STO is just another license; and a license that probably isn't paying them as much as many of their other licenses.
I'm starting to like this abrams guy...
What we saw was not waste processing unless...they use plutonium in their sandwiches.
http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091116140254/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d8/USS_Enterprise_%28alternate_reality%29_engineering_from_above.jpg
Since it is a cruiser, bump the size up a little to accommodate.
It would probably look a lot like the Avenger does now, but slimmer and more graceful and without that triangular primary hull shape.
In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest simply making it a new skin for the Avenger.
Just my 2 cents. But it would make me happy.
Now you could argue that 'well, neither was the engine room on the original Enterprise or the Enterprise-D', but then that would be a tacit admission that the JJprise isn't realistic either.
But leave that aside. The biggest problem I had with the engine room set, is that it wasn't an engine room set. It literally was filmed inside of a brewery. Because they decided to do it on the cheap. And because the script called for a whacky, zany scene where Kirk gets beamed inside of a pipe. If you're ok with that fine. But it doesn't qualify as 'tech Gene never thought of'. But if you want an example of tech that the original producers didn't think of, then how about the viewscreen on the bridge? In the original shows, it's a viewscreen. In JJTrek, it's also a window. Which is stupid.
They already have an updated look to the Connie. The Excalibur Class. However, again, CBS just says "no" and that is that. It is not a money issue or a licensing limit issue.
CBS
says
NO!
Final Answer.
The bowels of ships are full of pipes, tubes, railings, and so on. From that aspect what JJ was trying to do was give us a realistic idea of what the interior workings of a multi-year starship should look like: rather then empty corridors that walk in circles.
I think what some of us are trying to say here is that we like the aesthetics of the original series. You don?t have to give us the Constitution class, but allowing us to fly some ships whose design is reflective of that aesthetic can not be a bad thing.
And I do not think CBS said no to any of that.
I've read many places where posters point out that CBS has said no, but I've never seen the original Dev post explaining it.
I'd like to see it.
If CBS did have an issue with it, they would have explained it to the company in the original contract negotiations and it could be completely explained by Cryptic as to why not. The fact that I've never seen it explained means that there is something they don't want to explain about it and at this point I'm just going to say Cryptic doesn't want it made and that it has nothing to do with CBS.
If someone knows where the original post concerning CBS and a T5 Connie is in these forums, and can point to a Cryptic employee as the original poster, I'd like to see it.
Hey, I never said the original Enterprise/s were realistic. They're not. But they at least had a style which I liked.
And Cryptic doesn't need to explain its business dealings to us. We asked, they asked, they got a no, they told us no. That's all there is to it.
Here.
And here.
Those are two I could think of right away, there's also several interviews with various devs saying as much over the years, plus a bunch of other posts and ask cryptics I don't care to look up right now. One recently on Priority One with Geko saying no to even an Exeter as a compromise. You can find those on your own though.
Except that they have.. repeatedly. There is a T5 connie thread about 4 times a month. Either with ranting and raving, or calm rational negotiations in mind. And the answer has been, and always shall be:
Get over it. It is not going to happen. We have asked for a T5 Connie, A T5 Connie look-a-like, and updated version of a T5 Connie Look. Lockbox Connie. Limited Edition Connie. the $200 Connie. Connie holograms. Connie Skins. Connie ship parts for X, Y, and Z ship. It has all been discussed. It has all be shot down. This is one of the most dead horses in the game, and I wish fanboys would find something else to beat up.
That being said, I love the Connie. I love the ship-tease scene in the TMP/WoK. I cried watching it be destroyed in SFS. It is graceful, elegant, majestic, sturdy. It is an awesome looking ship. However, CBS has denied Cryptic the T5 Connie for 4 years now. I doubt any amount of forum rage or boycotts will change their mind.
But I am not asking for a T5 connie that seems to bring out so much emotion on both sides.
I am asking for a circular primary hull and elongated nacelles. They already exist in the game on other ships. The Ambassador has a circular primary hull. The Avenger (non elite version) has high placed elongated nacelles.
I am asking for greater flexibility in how I customize the appearance of my ship. But nevermind. Everyone gets all emotional over this topic, and any request that even hints at the remote possibility of making a ship that even slightly resembles a connie tends to bring out the worst of those emotions.
So forget I mentioned anything. Bottom line is that it is just a stupid game anyway.
But here is the thing. A T5 connie will happen, and it will happen when the company want's to cash in on the value of that ship. A year from now, or perhaps two, you will see one in the C-Store. Guaranteed. It is just a matter of time.